GAC matchmaking system

Replies

  • Waqui
    8555 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    uldebacd9el9.png

    This complainer seems to understand how mm works and is probably good with math.

    ... And others seem to not understand it. What's your point?

  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    uldebacd9el9.png

    This complainer seems to understand how mm works and is probably good with math.

    ... And others seem to not understand it. What's your point?

    Continued from the previous thread of posts that's not yours. That's my way of argumentation if you haven't noticed.
  • Starslayer
    1306 posts Member
    edited June 2
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    I understand (I think) what you are saying, gp doesn’t represent gear investment, but I fail to understand how gac will be improved if it would.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    I guess it’s hard to understand because you started a comparaison between the usefulness of 2 g7 vs 1 g12, which has nothing to do with how the gp raised is calculated compared to the investment needed but everything to do with how gp represents the usefulness of a unit (if I understood your point correctly, which I start to doubt).

    I understand (I think) what you are saying, gp doesn’t represent gear investment, but I fail to understand how gac will be improved if it would.

    Usefulness is the outcome. If the investment hold a good ladder in terms of gp contribution...then noone can claim their investment is wasted because it's not as useful. But currently too small an investment make folks generate too much gp compared to almost full unit (both at mm gp ranges and below it).

    Usefulness of such gp is everyone's own to assess...as long as that is generated on investment end properly.

    To understand the exact math you can calculate how much fewer gear generates too much gp while climbing the gear ladder, it's several magnitudes away from where it should be (very small gp change for very high investment change)
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    i.e. g11 has much less investment value in compared to g12, but the gp addition caused by both is almost similar.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    This goes back to a goodwilled history of gp. At the time it was done for tb, no other modes existed. They failed to/forgot to revamp it in the transition to matchmaking using it.
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    I'm not sure how you can say that, any toon with the same number of abilities has the same max value of GP, no matter their usefulness. So how exactly did they do that already?

    I easily say that because I did calculations which showcase proportionality doesn't work due to tables.

    How does it relate to usefulness?
    I don't think matchmaking should be done on a usefulness paradigm, so it doesn't. It is currently pseudo done on investment but fails to meet that goal.

    Ok, sorry, I said they shouldn't base it on usefulness and you said they did. I was confused.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    I'm not sure how you can say that, any toon with the same number of abilities has the same max value of GP, no matter their usefulness. So how exactly did they do that already?

    I easily say that because I did calculations which showcase proportionality doesn't work due to tables.

    How does it relate to usefulness?
    I don't think matchmaking should be done on a usefulness paradigm, so it doesn't. It is currently pseudo done on investment but fails to meet that goal.

    Ok, sorry, I said they shouldn't base it on usefulness and you said they did. I was confused.

    That can have been an option from the very first introduction (and make other type of folks of happy). It should either be based on investment or usefulness. In both cases this should be properly calculated to match in game realities.
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    If you take 2 maxed toons of course they will be similar. Take a toon at g11 vs. g12 vs g13 and see. With no toon you'll see proper gp escalation.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    "based on what gear they need"=prove it. You can't, it doesn't.
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    "based on what gear they need"=prove it. You can't, it doesn't.

    Are you saying a stun gun doesnt equal a stun gun when placed on 2 different toons?
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    "based on what gear they need"=prove it. You can't, it doesn't.

    Are you saying a stun gun doesnt equal a stun gun when placed on 2 different toons?

    We were talking about gear tiers, you delineated the conversation.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Not slots, tiers! That's what the gear gp table is built on.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    This is not because the value of different gear is different (and also needed amounts) or it's not because the gear tiers are in different between toons. These 2 factors also makes small differences but not impactful.

    It's because the gp ladder tables are off by magnitudes!
  • Waqui
    8555 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    uldebacd9el9.png

    This complainer seems to understand how mm works and is probably good with math.

    ... And others seem to not understand it. What's your point?

    Continued from the previous thread of posts that's not yours. That's my way of argumentation if you haven't noticed.

    ....and your point?
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Aaaand another g7 to g7 comparison makes me sure you simply don't get it. Others slowly notice the disparity in the math though so my effort is not in naught.
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Another try for those interested. Take any toon and calculate the cost in gear slots 10-11-12 and compare it the gp gain table. Do it for another toon too if you want. The costs between the toons will be similar which is not the POINT. The costs between gear tiers will be way off compared the gp gain table, the numbers climb in miniscule manner in the table, the costs don't.
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.
  • TVF
    30983 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    giphy.gif
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    giphy.gif

    Whether you agree or not, please tell me you get what I mean. That's the only hug I need xD
  • TVF
    30983 posts Member
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    giphy.gif

    Whether you agree or not, please tell me you get what I mean. That's the only hug I need xD

    You both write way too many words, sorry. I can only deal with gif-length communication.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • MaruMaru
    2346 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    giphy.gif

    Whether you agree or not, please tell me you get what I mean. That's the only hug I need xD

    You both write way too many words, sorry. I can only deal with gif-length communication.

    You formed a full sentence, that's impressive right there.
  • Kyno
    31670 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Starslayer wrote: »
    There are two ways to look at GAC. One is to assume that top 80 GP match is a good way to match and it is up to individuals to construct their rosters to gain the greatest advantage. Another way is to try to match players based on the "evenness" of their rosters and let the strategy within each matchup determine the winner, so that it is more difficult to "game" your roster to a significant advantage. I think most would agree that GP is not a great measure of how effective characters are, so the first method allows for roster manipulation to provide significant advantage.
    There are many parts of this game where OP toons like GLs allow for greater rewards: raids, TB, TW, and Conquest. However, GAC seems like one of the few areas in the game where a more sophisticated matching algorithm would allow for strategy and tactics of the battles themselves to take on greater importance.
    Just to show I am not being whiny because I lose; I do well in GAC, I have several undefeated seasons, have ranked in the top 100 overall, and before the start of the June 2021 season had a 745k overall score.

    I am coming at this from a game design perspective - thinking of the overall player base and how the game could provide different types of interactions, instead of more the same. GAC is still one of the best parts of the game now, I just think some tweaking could make it even better.
    Two possible solutions:
    1. Improve the GP calculation method by calculating GP based on effectiveness of the toon rather than the how many upgrades on their abilities have been done - not all abilities are equal. CG should have tons of data on how well toons perform in the game, and have some very smart data scientists that could create a better calculation method. I realize this would be a massive change to the game, and simply because it is change, people would likely freak out.
    2. Use a more sophisticated matching calculator for GAC - the hotutils comparisons include everything from speed, mods, key toons, etc. - it could provide some ideas for more sophisticated matchmaking. Again the data scientists at CG would love this kind of challenge. (note, I run statistical analyses on user interactions for my company, so I can sympathize)

    Another tweak that I think would make GAC more enjoyable, is to open the back territory after every squad is defeated OR has had at least 2 attempts on it. This would reduce the incentive for players to place 1 or 2 super meta teams in front row when they know their opponents has no good counters for them. Then they place garbage in the back, freeing them up for a stronger offense. This doesn't feel like it is the intent of GAC. I know some will argue that this would allow people to peek at the back by throwing garbage at the first two attempts, but they would be giving up huge points for the failed attempts. It seems a fair trade off. Then it at least allows players to play the whole field rather get stuck behind a team that you have no good counter to. And yes, I am well aware of many non-GL counters to GL teams but below ~5.5 million GP, it is hard to keep up with every counter.

    EDIT: I just looked back at eleven different comparisons between me and my opponents from hotutils. And every single one of my opponents had higher top 80 and top 65 GP. Also, 9 of the 11 they had at least one more meta toon than me, two had the same. I did have more 6 dots mods and better speed than most, so I am wondering if that is part of the current matchmaking? The number of zetas was usually very close, so I don't think that played much of a role in my matchups. I also had better GAC scores than most, so is that part of the calculation?

    I totally respect that the resource management aspect of strategy isn’t something that you (and other people) seem to enjoy and tbh, it’s a matter of taste so not debatable. Then I won’t (even if that’s my favorite part of strategy and the main reason why I do fairly well in gac ^^).

    I agree that the way GP is calculated could be improved. However, using ‘usefulness’ to do so has 2 major issues imo. First, it’s subjective. There isn’t an objective top 50 best characters out there, but several subjectives ones. So the numbers will be flawed, and the resource management will be close to value strategy in stock market: invest in characters that cost less than their true value. Second, it evolves with time. New characters appear, meta shifts, new combos... the today value of a character isn’t it’s tomorrow value.
    I think there is room for some tweaking in relic value in gp. As relic levels don’t impact speed, a 10% bump in overall stat is not a 10% bump in overall power level if speed doesn’t improve (in most cases, there are exceptions, no argument there). I found the gp cost of relic level very high compared to his ‘real’ value in game. For about the same amount of gp, you can field 3 r1 teams where your opponent field 1 r7 and 2 g11. As you can totally beat a r7 with a r1 team if it’s a hard counter, you start with a tremendous advantage.

    Not being able to ungear a character means you have to live with your game choices for ever, and that’s harsh. However, allowing ungearing of characters will give a huge advantage to paying customers who would be able to tweak things around for maximum effectiveness.

    About the ‘jump area’ idea: I don’t see how it will improve the ‘non resource’ strategical aspect of the game. On the contrary, it will diminish it imo. Fog of war is fun.

    Now, word of caution: if mm allow only similar rosters to play against each other, mods will be even more decisive than it is right now. Not sure it will be more interesting.
    And if you face only similar rosters, then your games will be very similar gac after gac, and that doesn’t sound fun.

    To enjoy the battle-only strategic aspect of the game, a different game mode would be more suited imo, like some sort of sealed or draft tournament for instance, where people select their army from the same pool of units.

    The problem with gp paradigm is not to shift it to usefulness imo. The tables themselves are -wrong-. The amount of gp gain from i.e. gear does not match...anything. Certainly not the amount of materials that goes into it. It's off by 4 folds that I calculated roughly a while ago. If it really matched investment, that would work much much better.

    But it matches itself no matter where its put. If you out it on a toon you applied X number of points where you thought it was useful, rather than on CUP, or some other toon that required that gear. Yes gear tables shift, but overall toons with the same amount of abilities and upgrades to those abilities have the same value when maxed. There is an equality there, and a elegant simplicity to the system that allows players to make choices and have them weighed without a subjective value.

    Don't you really get the false math behind this? i.e. a 2 g7 toons pushes as much as a g12 one. So the party who did 2 g7s gets seriously disadvantaged against the one that did a g12 one. Ofc this doesn't hold in the new top x scene similarly but the correlation still exists as such.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    Also to go one layer further, a player who takes GAS and JKL to g7 wins when matched against someone who took CUP to G12, is a bad thing?

    I see that as simple and elegant. Players choices coming through without any subjective values applied.

    Players need to see the value of where they place the points they have access to, that is what allows a player to come out ahead, without needing "everything" at their disposal.

    I'm not saying it perfect or couldnt be better, but you cant argue with the simplistic effectiveness built into that system.

    You are grasping to straws by giving irrelevant bad strategic choices. The gp table case holds universally with zero addition from further strategic choices.

    I gave one example to fill in how player choices work, in the scenario you described.

    You mean the person who chose to upgrade 2 toons to g7 is at a disadvantage to a player who focused on one to go to g12. That seems right to me.

    This doesnt seem "right" to you?

    Why should player not be responsible for managing the choices they make? Why shouldn't those choices be blind to allow players strategy to shine through?

    Do you want the dev team to be assigning usefulness values to a character or gear slot?

    They already did that assign that, it's called gp tables which I have this problem with. They didn't bother at the time because it served the purpose then.

    Lastly this is very similar to "let's change the sandbagging causes for gac" logic. A g7 toon should weigh much less which should be determined by the value of gear and other investment that goes into it. Hint, currently it doesn't. Don't hide that under ridicilious claims of strategy. Nothing to do with it.

    My g7 Wat, armorer or at some extent Gideon would disagree. Anecdotal for sure, but it shows the complexity of a ‘fair’ gp formula. Not saying the current method is perfect (I still think relic levels add too much gp), but it’s simple and fair enough imo.

    Hmm I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I'm saying that how the gp raises on gear tiers and many other things are not proportinal to any investmen. Ofc same things weigh the same. But that's not what I'm saying...at all.

    But its based on what gear they need. And as you progress you have to make those choices, i.e. - where do you put those stun guns? (Quite literally one of the most asked questions in the process of gearing)

    Those are part of the choices players have to make and those are represented in the matchmaking, and farming decisions too, when someone could farm the equivalent value of other gear vs stun guns.

    Many layers here, but GP represents the players choice in activities and development path, in a simplistic manner that allows the progression and evolution of developmental choices to show through.

    Yes a g7 may not exactly equal a g7, but I could have sworn that back when this was introduced someone did a breakdown showing the minimal effect this has on the total GP of a toon and the % difference between 2 toons with the same max value.

    I'm not talking about g7 vs. g7 once again. I'm talking about g7 vs g8 vs g9 vs g10...and so on not matching the gp raises they cause. No matter which toon you take you'll see that the investment angle doesn't hold because gp tables doesn't scale properly! Take any toon and calculate.

    Does it scale, yes. Is it more related to the pieces they need, yes, at the micro level. But as you invest pieces they have a value, and the sum of that is the culmination of choices a player has made.

    I'm getting a bit bored. Will it take putting down a comprehensive calculation for you to believe me even though this is as clear as day? The scaling is several magnitudes off.

    As you add pices does the GP go up? Is this always the case?

    Players make choices on what to farm and who to put those pieces on. All of those add a point value to the system. They system takes a blind approach allowing the players judgments on what to farm and who to place them on to get the best "value". In the end g7 not being worth the same as g7 on another toon is meaningless, if the player can make a team/strategy around that investment that helps them win, good. If they make bad choices they will have trouble.

    It is designed to be a simplistic representation and with matchmaking doesnt need to be equal, as long as the pieces hold the same value from toon to toon, as those pieces are easier/harder to get.

    As I said multiple times, gp doesn't go up proportional to the gear used. So the -investment- assumption doesn't work.

    So adding a stun gun to one character is a different value than adding that same stun gun to another?

    No. Since you simply don't understand regardless of how many times I tell it and give the example of what you should be looking at, let's not waste eachother's time....especially since you also won't be talking to the devs about what this is, it anything happens anytime it will not be because of you. You will simply be the naysayer per usual...until the very change happens.

    Ok, so if a stun gun is worth the same value, no matter where I put it, then how does the GP of a toon not represent my investment of that stun gun to a character?
Sign In or Register to comment.